Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Well .. isn't it?

CT Senator Says Anyone Wanting A High-Capacity Magazine Is ‘Arming Against The Government’ - Downtrend:

 It is absolutely irresponsible to even suggest that wanting to exercise one’s Constitutional right equates to a desire for armed insurgency. He’s saying that having a 30-round mag is the same thing as joining ISIS. The truth is nearly every gun owner in America is a responsible citizen, including the millions who own modern sporting rifles (AKA assault rifles) and 30-round magazines.

"Minute Men Much?"

I take exception to this blogger's suggestion that the Second Amendment completely disregards the possible need to take up arms to resist a dictatorial government.

(No, I'm not suggesting that firearms owners are ipso facto insurgents, or that equipment equivalencies are unconstitutional;  I'm just saying that quibbling about technical details are just one way of taking public attention away from Constitutional Rights and pointing that attention toward Political Differences .. which are nothing more than a lot of hot air.)

I draw your attention to the original Declaration of Independence, which includes this statement:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

I'm not here advocating the violent overthrow of the government.  But our Founding Fathers were, and they here-in established the justification for their "right, their duty, to throw off such Government" .. notwithstanding such means are necessary to abbrogate their self-defined tyranny.

Americans are clearly not at a place where they consider such drastic means as a tool to to resist tyranny ...and we are certainly not facing such a situation today.

But while I agree that the with the author that we are not at that place, I don't agree that we may not someday find ourselves in such a quandary that no lesser remedy might seem likely to reassert our independence .. if not from a foreign government, but from one of our own making.

It is cowardly for us to unilaterally reject the solutions of our Founding Fathers.  But it is similarly cowardly of us to not remind our elected representatives, from time to time, that such drastic remedies are among our choices.

We are at the point today where we are commonly reluctant to offer "Force Of Arms" as an alternative to our elective leadership.  That reluctance is correct, civil and in accordance to established law.

NOBODY wants to force another revolution .. the last one came within inches (now 'millimeters', according to our European betters) of destroying our country.

However, when the leadership causes us to fear their power more than they fear ours, we find ourselves in an ethical quandary:

How much of OUR rights are we willing to concede to them, before the elected leadership decides it's better to bow to our wishes, rather than to politically force us to bow to theirs?

I speak now about their impositions on our Bill of Rights, our Constitutional Rights (not "Privileges", as they would have us to believe).

More, I speak about the administrative power which they have assumed over us.  Their banking system has the power of the purse; their redefined courts allow The State to confiscate our properties without just compensation, or without just cause, or without oversight.

And still, we remain silent about the frequent impingement upon our Constitutional rights.

Because, you know, we just want to get along; and we don't want to embarrass anybody.

Maybe it's time that we decide it's okay to embarrass our public servants, and our elected officials.

Maybe it's time for us to require demand that they act more as servants, than as administrative overlords.

Maybe it's time for us to remind them that they have more power, but we have more numbers.

We are the People.

Isn't it time that we require them to serve us, instead of forcing them to serve us?

We do, you know ... have the power.   We're just too polite to exercise it.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The Ct. Senator is the government and he feels at risk.